Darwinists won't let opposition into the debate because they're afraid they might be shown to be wrong and will therefore have to acknowledge the possibility of a Divine Source for their own existence.  

They refuse to do this because in their religion, they are god, and they won't relinquish that throne.

I wonder if PBS will broadcast this documentary. After-all the "P" stands for "Public" doesn't it?

"So they are not going to challenge the ideology that has given them lush positions in real life."

This has interesting parallels to Capitalism vs. Marxism, another ideologically-charged opposition that almost always, at least in casual conversation, relies more on instinctive notions of what's right rather than what makes sense. In the case of this article, Darwinians are accused of not giving ID a second thought because evolutionary theory has given them grants and fellowships and prestige. Not biting the hand, and so forth.

Likewise, just as those who accept evolution can hardly even allow the possibility of ID, if only because they have been so well-conditioned to believe in evolution, those who are capitalist subjects, that is, their lives are inextricably tied up in the capitalist system (through mortgages, investments, bank accounts, credit card debt, and of course, the purchasing of commodities) generally cannot even conceive of its absence. And, of course, those who benefit from this system have an obvious vested interest in maintaining it.

Bear with me a momemnt: Now and then a conversation here on NB will mention how Star Trek is ideologically suspect because it showed a society flourishing sans financial institutions of any kind. Now, a person on the lookout for leftism in culture might notice this, but the average trekkie, who can tell you, off the top of his head, like how many Season 2 episodes involved Klingon attacks, never notices this.

My point, simply, is that there are some commonly accepted ideas that cannot be changed, not just because of their ideological appeal but because it is nearly impossible to conceive of it any other way. In the Capitalism/Marxism example, of course, the leftist is the marginalized one. In Evolution/ID, it is the conservative.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte

This correlates directly to the AGW debate and scientists tied to money.  The only way to get a grant is to support AGW.  If not, you're outside the mainstream and considered a hack.  The scientists stay where the grant money is.  The point being made here is the same.  Intelligent Design scientists can't break through and are being silenced because the Darwinian theory is where the money lies.  In my humble opinion I think that the ID people are also shunned because the Darwinians are afraid of religion.

UPDATE:  Here's an interesting article about the censorship that their documentary is talking about. 

Stultus est sicut stultus facit

ID is NOT science.

Because of the misinterpretations by Dawkins and other agitprop scientists re Darwin's view of Intelligent Design, the following quote from Darwin's autobiography might shed some light on what he really believed. He did indeed struggle with the issue for many years. But this is where he seems to have come out:

"In the Autobiography’s second argument for the existence of God,
Darwin’s
appreciation for intelligent design in nature is more rational and substantive.
He argues:

Another
source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with
the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having
much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty
or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wondrous
universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards
and far into futurity, as a result of blind chance or necessity.
When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause
having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that
of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist (Barlow 1958: 92-93 [3])."

(sorry for the messed up formating)

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

It is not something that can be scientificly tested. Therefore it is fine as a philosphy and may even be true, but no matter what, it will NEVER be science. End of story.

Whenever this subject gets brought up, I never cease to be amazed by lefties who talk about evolution as fact, because they are the ones that obviously don't know their facts. For instance, Syrius throws the word "fossils" out there as if that word by itself defeats ID, when in fact it is one of evolutionary theory's greatest weaknesses. Syrius, ask yourself this; why there are none of the many transitional forms that Darwin prophesied? They aren't there. In fact, even Stephen Jay Gould, one of the Prophets of Naturalism, even admitted that in the so-called "Tree of Life" all we have is the tips, even though he taught otherwise. In other words, all fossils are grouped with NO transitional intermediaries. Even whenever there are new fossil finds, they are always either a) part of an existing species, or b) a new one. Darwin had an excuse, because 99% of all fossil finds made were made after he died - you don't.

How about the molecular level, and issues like chirality (the fact that 19 amino acids and 2 sugars that make up RNA and DNA are all either left handed or right handed configurations)? Any nonbiological process only make 50% left handed and 50% right handed, but you must have monochirality for life to exist. So how did that happen? It certainly has yet to be shown that it could happen by strictly natural processes. Evolutionary scientists have even asked (at placess like the ISSOL conferences) if there is any way around it, because they are so frustrated with being unable to explain it by any strictly natural processes.

What about the cosmological level? Even though people like Kant and Eddington and others came up with scientific theories (i.e infinite universe, steady state theory) based on philosphical ideas instead of science, their ideas have been shown to be false by people like Hubble and Einstien, general relativity, and experiments like COBE, Boomerang, and many others.

People like Richard Dawkins, continue the same approach: rant and rage and dance around the facts because they know that they have none to back them up.

And as for oppression of those in the scientific community who don't believe in evolution, it's very real. Philip Johnson tells stories of going around to universities and talking to science students, and hearing about how students are told by their professors to keep re-running experiments because the results didn't fit what would be expected from an evolutionary standpoint. Scientific Naturalists (i.e those who believe that nature is all there is) are even more religious that those of us who believe in a Creator, because they believe in something for which they have no evidence.

Somebody help me out here. If science can be used by atheists to DISPROVE the existence of God, why cant it be used by theists to PROVE the existence of God? How is one scientific and the other not?

To all the Darwinists out there.

If you don't believe in the existance of God, how then do you explain the continued existance of the Jews?  For over 5000 years virtually every force of man and politics have been arrayed against them. Countless dictators and empires have sought their destruction.  History is full of the stories of civilzations that succumed and disappeared after being faced with circumstances far less perilous than anything thrown at the Jews.   By any interpritation of Darwinian theory they should have passed into the pages of history long ago.  And yet there they are, still existing and thriving and at the center of world events. 

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."

Alexander Hamilton

Stein’s premise of censorship in Science is misleading and appeals to our simple notion of free speech, fairness and Democracy. But Science is not a democracy or an open forum where all different ideas and beliefs can be expressed and debated. And not all ideas are equal deserving equal time. It has to draw lines. The line is drawn on good and accepted science.

If I believe that the stork delivers babies, or gravity doesn’t exist, or addiction is not a disease, or that man and the universe always existed as is, no creation, no evolution, or if I believe aliens from mars created us, or an invisible man in the sky created us, or what about the flood theory of Noah’s Ark - should the scientific community be open to all of these ideas or beliefs? If not, is it engaging in censorship if it excludes them?

It took 40 years for the big bang theory to get accepted by science. How did they do it? By doing good science - They did not try to change school curriculums, engage in PR to get public support or get an actor to host a documentary or cry censorship.

The ID movement needs to stop the PR, stop the attacks on evolution and be patient and invest the time to just do good science. Until you have something real and tangible so the theory can stand on its own – without attacking evolution, The ID movement is just wasting the public’s time.

I find it interesting that 96% of the known universe is composed of something that science doesn't understand. And never mind that they don't understand it, they don't know how to begin to understand it. 

Yet, within some scientific quarters, there is absolute certainty that God does not exist.

This is akin to liberal theory on government, othewise known as "stateism".  God cannot exist because the state is god. Because the state is god, it is responsible for all citizens welfare and must protect them from themselves.  "Everything is in the state. Nothing is outside the state, or beyond the realm of it's control."  This is EXACTLY how Mussolini difined fascism and totalatarianism.  It was he who coined the word totalitarian after all.  Lifelong socialist that he was.

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."

Alexander Hamilton

How do you explain infinity to me?

When did time start? And when is it gonna end? What came before there was time? What's coming after the end of time?

Second point: Where does space start? And where does it end? What's outside our universe? Where is it expanding to?

And finally: If there is no God as you say, what was the cause of the emergence of the universe? In your materialistic terms, there has to be a cause and effect. This is your basic materialistic tenet, isn't it? So if your answer is "I don't know" (as this is the answer any atheists gives you) then you still have to admit that something/somebody must have been the cause. But then you as a materialist would have to admit that there IS somebody/something that caused life and the universe. And if there was a cause for it, then there must be another caused that caused that cause and another before the cause etc. and you're stuck with an infinite regress. So if Dawkins asks "who created the Creator?" he shows himself up unknowingly. We believers in God don't need to ask ourselves this question: God is infinity and with our limited mind we cannot comprehend infinity. And this proves that there is something that we humans can only explain with the supernatural God. We don't need to deal with questions such as "what caused the universe" because God is the cause. But you atheists are stuck with this conundrum that you're never gonna answer with your crude materialism. Never.

As long as you have yet to explain infinity to me, you show more humility than arrogance. But it's typical for atheists: They deem themselves so much more intelligent than those "dumb Christians" and this is why the left with all its philosophy and art is so self-indulgent, self-righteous and full of canards. Have you seen the movie "the squid and the whale"? Those two married academics where the personified hollowness and arrogance of today's academic intelligentsia. We Christians know there's someone much wiser than we up there which is a very humbling fact. But atheists consider themselves God and want to rationalise any kind of debauchery and perversion and let it go unchecked ; and any notion of a supreme being goes against their vanity . Beware of false prophets and God will judge all those heretics incl. Dawkins and his blasphemous screeds.

If there's one fight we need to drop, it's this one. It's *not* about "censorship" or "secularizing our schools" or any other nonsense. This is a stupid fight that easliy allows the libs to make us look stupid, and rightly so.

So, the article says this:

"proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory are being silenced and
marginalized at the expense of research that could ... boost medical research"

My simple request is for someone to just answer the following question with their opinion, some speculation, guesswork, whatever! You don't have to be a scientist, just offer your best guess.

But just answer it:

What medical research could be boosted by the principles of intelligent design, and how?

I think this whole issue is entirely too hot for most people to
converse rationally about it. I'm a hard core, right-wing, free-market
capitalist, god-fearing, rational thinker who thinks that intelligent
design has no place in science.

Neither science, nor scientists "excluded God." It just progressed
past the point where it tried (and failed) to figure out the nature of
God, and instead focused on stuff that we *could* understand.

I mean, I *get* it - the world is a mysterious and wonderful place,
and science studies that mystery in an attempt to understand it in the
limited capacity we as humans have, mostly to provide us with the
ability to help ourselves improve our lot, live longer, enjoy stuff
more, etc.

Here's the way I look at it - it's OK for science classrooms to
exclude theories that involve God or the supernatural. It's not because
science has "disproven" God, or any such nonsense - it's because we as
humans have realized that the limits of our knowledge can't contain or
comprehend God, and so we have chosen to exclude God from our
scientific studies to focus on the things that we can fully know (in
our limited capacity) and influence.

Argh. See reason here, people! Claiming that the exclusion of the
theory of intelligent design from the study of science is somehow
denying the existence of God is like saying that the exclusion of the
theory of supernatural generation of eggs from the study of agriculture
is somehow denying the existence of the Easter Bunny. I can both
believe in the Easter Bunny, and also spend my life studying how
chickens lay eggs without being contradictory at all.